On the way home I was reflecting on the
recent posts targeting Samsung as having done something very wrong - while
refusing to back it with any kind of evidence of course.
- This is just my own reflection and deductive reasoning based
on certain recent activities.
- This is just a possibility that may
explain the posts. This does not in any way prove that the actual intent of the
posts is for this reason.
And today, there
seems to be the double focus that you point out:
Trying to convince us that
this is "just a normal battle between companies".
But again: no citations.
Not a single one to point out a single other company having petitioned the Court
to resolve a licensing dispute then outright telling the Court that they will
not honor the Court's decision unless it's of a specific value or
Then it dawned on me while I was on the train (lots of thought time
riding the rails):
Apple may have finally woken up to the damage they caused
their own brand with their tactics!
If they have, then they'll be working
mighty hard for damage control purposes. Mighty, mighty hard given how much
damage they have caused themselves.
And what kind of damage control
tactics are we potentially currently seeing?
A) Get the focus of attention
away from you!
Pointing a finger to the victim of doing something wrong is
a favorite tactic of bullies I have witnessed. That includes bullies who have
unsuccessfully targeted me. They seem to think where they fail at other tactics
that their lieing accusations will work better.
B) Claim this is just normal
Even HP made the claim that pre-texting was ok because "everyone
is doing it!" Absolutely no indication of any recognition that pre-texting - at
it's heart concept - is nothing more then identity fraud. Perhaps not the
specific Legal definition of identity fraud - but the basic concept is clearly
So what other possible tactics can we expect? I think we can take
the strategies we have witnessed over the years that have been presented by such
entities as SCOg and extrapolate into what we can expect to potentially
1) Present citations that actually say the opposite of what you
claim they say.
This may already have occurred given in another part of the
thread P.J. appears to have corrected the interpretation that is potentially
being presented with regards the case of Realtek v. LSI. It's hard for me to
say that is a correction since the original poster has provided very little
actual clarity on the specific point(s) he was citing the case as "proving"
while P.J. has shown the case was dismissed. But it's a potential.
information to friendly "journalists" and then point to those articles as though
they are 3rd party neutral investigations that corroborate your opinions while
pretending you weren't the source of the information they printed.
already be seeing this in the claims of anti-trust examinations currently
on-going against Google. We see certainly elements in behind those claims.
Even though they are currently on-going investigations that have not reached any
official statement of wrong-doing, they are being presented as evidence of
3) Attempt to rewrite history
We saw this in a number of
cases where the entities involved started deleting information they themselves
had posted to the net. Can we expect information on the wrong-doings of
Samsung/Motorola/et al that is currently available on Apple
controlled/influenced sites to start disappearing? Can we expect the
documents/statements that Apple thought were good for it that are actually
highly damaging to start disappearing? I wonder if FM has received the
4) Recognizing all these tactics are completely backfiring - the last
tactic is to go silent. To disappear from the public communications and do
everything possible in back-room negotiations.
Of course - if Apple had
desired to enter good-faith negotiations for the FRAND patents, they should have
made their deals outside the public eye like they always have in the first
Just some thoughts to consider as we observe what other
interesting behaviors may be stirring.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]